This short essay analyzes the deception and self-deception in talk of ‘the clash of civilizations’ and proceeds to diagnose what is wrong in the standard understanding of Islam in the Western media today by looking to the abiding history of colonial relations with Islam down to this day and also looking to the relation between ideals of democracy and the formation of religious identities. The essay closes with some remarks about the nature of identity and the importance to one's own agency of the distinction between the first and the third person point of view in Muslim self-understanding.
The politics of nativism directed at Catholic immigrants in 19th century America offer a fruitful comparative perspective through which to analyze the discourse and the politics of Islam in contemporary Europe. Anti- Catholic Nativism constituted a peculiar North American version of the larger and more generalized phenomenon of anti-immigrant populist xenophobic politics which one finds in many countries and in different historical contexts. What is usually designated as Islamo-phobia in contemporary Europe, however, manifests striking resemblances with the original phenomenon of American nativism that emerged in the middle of the 19th century in the United States. In both cases one finds the fusion of anti-immigrant xenophobic attitudes, perennial inter-religious prejudices, and an ideological construct setting a particular religious-civilizational complex in essential opposition to Western modernity. Although an anti-Muslim discourse emerged also in the United States after September 11, it had primarily a geo-political dimension connected with the “war on terror” and with American global imperial policies. But it lacked the domestic anti-immigrant populist as well as the modern secularist anti-Muslim dimensions. This explains why xenophobic anti-Muslim nativism has been much weaker in the United States than in Europe.[1]
The paper explores the tradition of dialogue in Islam and Islamic history and its importance in facilitating an inter-faith and cross-cultural dialogue with the West across the binary that has been increasingly strengthened since 2001. The rise in religious extremism and hegemony is an indicator of not only a crisis in religious authority, but also an absence of dialogue, the very dialogue that had shaped and conceptualized Islam and its tradition and is an inherent part of it. I examine the way The Amman Message and The Common Word bring back the role of dialogue and consensus in reconstructing Islam and how this has contributed to the dialogue at the international level. I also examine the role enlightenment thinking has played in promoting religious dialogue at both the internal and external levels, with the text, with traditional scholars, and with non-Muslim scholars and the non-Muslim public.
Alessandro Ferrara, University of Rome Tor Vergata24 June 2013
In the global world, momentous migratory tides have produced hyper-pluralism on the domestic scale, bringing citizens with radically different conceptions of life, justice and the good to coexist side by side. Conjectural arguments about the acceptance of pluralism, the next best to public reason when shared premises are too thin, may not succeed in convincing all constituencies. What resources, then, can liberal democracy mobilize? The multivariate democratic polity is the original answer to this question, based on an interpretation of Rawls which revisits Political Liberalism in the light of The Law of Peoples. The unscrutinized assumption is highlighted, often read into Rawls’s Political Liberalism, that a polity moves homogeneously and all of a piece from religious conflict to modus vivendi, constitutional consensus and finally to overlapping consensus. Drawing on The Law of Peoples, a different picture can be obtained.
Kwame Anthony Appiah, Princeton University, Usa24 June 2013
This paper aims to explain why the idea of the West is, for historical and philosophical reasons, an obstacle to dealing with the dangers posed by radical Islamists. Every proposed theory of the West has to account for the great internal cultural diversity both of European cultures and of those influenced by them around the world; and every serious historical account of both Europe and Islam has to recognize the long-standing, substantial, and ongoing interdependence of their intellectual and religious traditions. As a result, what is needed to face extremists, whether inside or outside Europe (and whether Christian, Moslem or neither) is not an opposition between Islam and the West, but an alliance of those of all faiths and none who can live with and tolerate cultural difference against those, wherever they live and whatever their religion, who cannot.[1]
Charles Taylor, McGill University, Montreal24 June 2013
This essay discusses the difference between the concepts of multiculturalism and interculturalism, both concepts which are current on the Canadian scene. It argues that the difference between the two is not so much a matter of the concrete policies, but concerns rather the story that we tell about where we are coming from and where we are going. In some ways, we could argue that interculturalism is more suitable for certain European countries.[1]
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, School of Law, Emory University, USA1 June 2013
This article calls for moral choices and political action to escape the trap of the duality of aggression and resistance, of domination and liberation. Conflict is a permanent feature of human relationships, but violence is not only unproductive in resolving conflict, but can be rendered unnecessary by developing normative resources and institutional mechanisms for the mediating conflict. Taking self-determination as a core human value and political reality in today’s globalized world, this paper argues that we should reconceive realpolitik to escape the trap by acknowledging the moral choices of others, and striving to be persuasive about our moral choices and political actions. Persuasion, and not violence, provides sustainable mediation of conflict. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the possibilities of mediation of the trap of resentment and retaliation in Dar Fur, Sudan, through multilayered strategies from immediate, short to long term action by local, regional and global actors.
Claus Offe, Hertie School of Government, Berlin1 June 2013
Resentment is not so much based upon the diversity of cultural and other identities but often rooted in grievances, complaints, and memories of historical conflicts that groups hold against other groups. Using examples from Central and Eastern Europe, the paper argues that the viability of liberal democratic welfare states in Europe depends upon a minimum of toleration, trust, and solidarity among citizens. It is these cultural underpinnings of democracy which are threatened by historically rooted and (often strategically activated) feelings of resentment.
Rajeev Bhargava, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, India1 June 2013
Two notions of reconciliation exist. The weak or thin conception is akin to 'resignation'. It is sought by groups that have waged war against one another but have come to the realization neither can win. Reconciliation in this sense results from an enforced lowering of expectations. In the stronger sense, reconciliation means a virtual cancellation of enmity or estrangement via a morally grounded forgiveness, achievable only when conflicting groups acknowledge collective responsibility for past injustice, and shed their deep prejudices by a profound and painful transformation in their identities. It is because this process is not possible without a somewhat brutal confrontation with oneself and a painful recognition of one’s own moral degradation that reconciliation is difficult to achieve.
Two opposite statements must be rejected with the same rigor. First (1) is that a few countries have identified themselves with modernity by their scientific, technical and economic achievement and that the rest of the world, which is lagging behind the ‘advanced countries’, must follow in their footsteps and imitate their example. The article first of all sets out the falsity of such a statement, because there is not one but many western paths of modernization, and indicates that it is nothing but a colonialist ideology, which spread from European and American societies and cultures and destroyed all independent efforts of modernization in other countries, in particular China. The hegemony of the western capitalist model is more than challenged by other ways of modernization, for though the soviet model has failed, other countries are ‘emerging’ or have already emerged. Second (2) the opposite representation defends the idea of a complete multiculturalism including political regimes and human rights. It fights against the previous colonialist model and supports a total relativism. But this view makes impossible the communication between completely different countries and cultures and reciprocal fear leads to an extreme conflict between ‘civilizations’, such as S. Huntington has described. This view leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable if each civilization has a complete internal unity and a complete control on all its activities. But the world is not divided into various theocratic states: no single theocratic state commands the whole or the majority of Muslim population. The central problem remains real and difficult: how to combine unity and diversity, the difference between cultures and the capacity for them to communicate with each other? The most useful idea is to elaborate one general definition of modernity, as a culture which is based on universalistic principles. The western mode of modernization is not the only possible one; nor is it at all sure that the western process of separation of temporal and spiritual powers is the only possibility. We cannot assert that universalism must penetrate social life only through political institutions and citizenship. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that modernity, with its universalistic components, cannot be identified with only one type of social organization and cultural values.
Please consider giving a tax-free donation to Reset this year
Any amount will help show your support for our activities
In Europe and elsewhere
(Reset DOC)
In the US
(Reset Dialogues)
x
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
